mos1833

thanks john999 this is so stressful, as i re-read the denial , i can spot so much crap,that it confuses me even more .

i never claimed any thing,i just said i hurt my back in service. below is a lie, and part where they say it appears to be related is not a medical term,and is a simple misinterpretation of the fact. ((((((Therefore, to the extent the Veteran claims osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine, it appears to be related to a congenital deformity which cannot be service-connected. Under the relevant regulations )))))

its clear that board or va made its on medical opinion by saying that my back could not be service connected.for a defect. and said it was the law, they claimed the xrays showed a defect,if you read the xray report,you'll see their interpretation is not supported by a clear reading.. even though there was no doctors opinion given at the time, it had to be their on medical opinion. when i read the report i say that there was no defect showned an anomaly is not a defect,nor is osteoarthritis. one of the links below is the xray document, and one is how the board or the va made it on opinion. bias 20.txt 1985 did not say defect.txt

its clear that board or va made its on medical opinion by saying that my back could not be service connected.for a defect. and said it was the law, they claimed the xrays showed a defect,if you read the xray report,you'll see their interpretation is not supported by a clear reading.. even though there was no doctors opinion given at the time, it had to be their on medical opinion. when i read the report i say that there was no defect showned an anomaly is not a defect,nor is osteoarthritis. one of the links below is the xray document, and one is how the board or the va made it on opinion. 1985 did not say defect.txt

thanks again brother adobe reader is what i use to open it. is msword the same as wordpad,,i have wordpad,, sorry basser but i'am dumb as a chicken, when it comes to this kinda stuff you say ( dont copy it to word pad ) i copy it to notepad, oh, they show up in my documents as PDF file. i guess the question is ( how to get the pages from the cd to hadit forum ,with out it changeing )

thanks again basser ok,,, heres what i do i put the cd in and open it up,,it appears as pages ,,1,,2,,and so on. when i see a page i want to share with the group.. i hi lite the page, and copy it to note pad.. from note pad i save it ,to my documents ,, the i go to hadit ,,and try to attach it ,, and it will go to hadit as an attachment,,, but when it opens its different than the page i tried to send,, what am i do[ng wrong,,

thanks guys basser i did just what you suggested. but it dont show up the same as the copied document,,, after i down load the attatched file its all rearranged,it works ok but i want an exact copy to show. thanks

i need help,,, ok i received my medical records on a cd disk. and now i want to copy and paste to hadit forums . the information on the cd are numbered pages, 1 2 3 and so on, when i copy a page and try to paste it , the page is different than what it look like on my screen. i want to show it to the forums exactly as the cd shows it. i guess i just want you to see exactly what i;am seeing. thanks

thanks notorious kelly this was a joint remand to get my smr's and to consider my lay evidence.,, nothing was done correctly,no new evidence (smr'S )were added,and they just posted the rules for considering lay evidence,the rules were clear,,and had the been followed correctly,i would have won....how can they list the rules in a way that says one thing ,,but then find away around them...// i dont think a c/p was needed,, i was just used to pile on more negitive evidence.

thanks again i thought because i had no treatment /my lay testimony would cover that (not) oh the nuero doctor did not say that,,,,,, it was a nurse that did the c.p exam what a joke.

dr hawkins.txt this shows how bad the va misinterpts evidence

ruready they left the most important part of his opinion. he said that all the vetebrae and structural problems were ( secondary ) to my back spings he did not state what is below, he didnt reflect shit about the first evidence of any injury to the vertebrae he said it was secondary.,below is how they stated not him. was noted that the May 1984 statement of a private chiropractor reflected that the first evidence of any injury to the vertebrae were the post service injuries in 1979, and so the current low back disability was less likely than not related to the inservice soft-tissue injuries and most likely related to the injuries in 1979.

new incon.txt above is a part of my remand,which was denied ,it sure seems to me they are telling the examiner what to consider. all that happened in this exam a post hoc type a thing. sounds like the examiner will decide my claim,not the board. maybe its just me. i just dont know any more thanks

ever time i try to log in i get a code 9 error, whats wrong .thanks

below is confusing to me.so i typed in the question ( wheres my appeal ) its a breif history of my claim for a back condition. i just dont under stand, any commits thanks joint remand.txt

thanks guys it says CLERICAL EVALUATION and it got me thinking so i thought i ask what it was.

i just noticed this in there reasons and bases heres what the va says was an exam. a clerical evaluation with a showing of normal spine. what to heck is a clerical evaluation good 6 clerical.txtgood 6 clerical.txt

sorry philip thats the wrong file i am trying to replace it

thanks vync below is a document they say shows a normal spine at my separation . 2nd try (5).pdf

what gets me is that this was a remanded claim for the board to specifically reconsider the claim , useing my lay evidence.because they failed to before. all they did was list this bull sh** laws and never once pointed to a specific peace of evidence that would justifi or proof in there decision denying the benifits.

i just keep finding issues where the law dont mean any thing. i sure think this is wrong, below is some of it. permissible to consider.txt

carlie remember i said i suffered a chronic condition. and was put on a no duty profile. the v.a.i was not a credible witness. so they denied my claim for that among other things but i am trying to prove they were wrong about my creditibilty. i hope the files below and the one on top opens, thanks

well carlie the va said my claim was based on whether i could prove that they were wrong when they denied my claim, based on my creditable. they said i recovered from my injury and it was an acute,but i said it was chronic,and that i was put on lite duty til i was seperated. the duty records above shows that i was on and off duty, which should prove what i said,and add to my creditable. its a pretty big deal when a duty matter comes up at morning reports,they use to call us the sick bay playtoon. and shit birds. thanks

carlie they didnt believe me when i said i was on lite duty a lot after my injury. they said there was no medical records that showed it was a chronic condition. so when i said that they should get all my records, they said they tryed and that was the end of that,so i told them they were searching for the wrong records. ( they requested stressor documents ) any way , like i stated above it seems they denied me just because of my lay evidence. ( IT SAY THIS CLAIM HINGES ON WHETHER I CAN PROVE MY TESTIMONY CREDIBLE ) so the records below show my unit history or my history at least. while its not medical evidence,it does support my testimony which i assume is the issue here. the dates are mixed up but the point i was trying to make in my testimony is clear here that i lost my duty status , i cant call it medical but it does show a break of duty , if the files below do open ,ill try to repost them,tell me what you think. thanks

carlie if the link below opens it will show what the va says is needed. the records i just found will support my lay evidence. bad,hinges on.txt